F I L E D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 3 2001

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID BUSBY,

00-5014
(99-CR-20-K)
(Northern District of Oklahoma)

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KENNETH MAURICE WOODS,

00-5043
(99-CR-20-K)
(Northern District of Oklahoma)

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EDWIN ESKRIDGE,
Defendant-Appellant.

00-5044
(99-CR-20-K)
(Northern District of Oklahoma)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

00-5107
(99-CR-20-K)
(Northern District of Oklahoma)

v.
MICHAEL McCALISTER,
Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and MILLS,**
District Judge.
In a second superceding indictment filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, Sidney Ronnell Iiland (Iiland), David Busby (Busby),
Kenneth Maurice Woods (Woods), Robert Edwin Eskridge (Eskridge), Michael
McCalister (McCalister), and others, were jointly charged with various drug and drug
related offenses. Some defendants entered into plea agreements, and two were never
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*

Honorable Richard H. Mills, Senior District Judge, United States District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
**

-2-

apprehended. In a jury trial, Busby was convicted of several offenses. In a separate jury
trial, Iiland, Woods, Eskridge and McCalister were jointly tried, and all were convicted of
various drug offenses.
Iiland, Busby, Woods, Eskridge and McCalister have each filed separate appeals
and are represented in this Court by different counsel. On November 16, 2000, oral
argument was heard by this Court from counsel for Busby, Woods and McCalister, as
well as from government counsel. Counsel for Iiland and Eskridge waived oral argument
and by order of this Court their appeals were submitted on the briefs. Four of the five
appellants, namely, Busby, Woods, Eskridge, and McCalister are companioned for the
purpose of disposition, although each will be considered seriatim. Iilands appeal will be
treated separately.
No. 00-5014, United States v. Busby
Busby was charged in the superceding indictment with conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute, and distribution of controlled drugs, use of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and
maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Busby, in a
jury trial, was tried and convicted of all counts except conspiracy which the government
dismissed. Busby was sentenced to 211 months imprisonment, supervised release of five
years and a fine of $2000.
On appeal, Busby, who was tried separately from the other appellants, argues that
-3-

the district court erred in two particulars: (1) the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress wiretap evidence allegedly obtained in an illegal telephone tap,
and (2) the district court also erred in denying his motion to suppress certain inculpatory
statements made by him to police officers. We find no reversible error and therefore
affirm Busbys several convictions and the sentences imposed thereon.
On September 23, 1998, upon application of the Assistant United States Attorney
for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which was supported by a fifty six page affidavit,
the district court issued an order authorizing the interception of wire communication for
no more than 30 days to and from the telephone located at 316 West 13th Street,
Apartment #1, Tulsa, Oklahoma, which phone was subscribed to in the name of Latrice
Edmond . . . hereinafter the target telephone. On October 23, 1998, the district court,
again upon application of the Assistant United States Attorney, extended the prior order
for up to 30 days on the same target telephone identified in the original order of
authorization.
Although we cannot find it in the record on appeal, prior to his trial, Busby
apparently filed a pretrial motion to suppress the use at trial of the evidence obtained
through the wire interceptions, which included several telephone calls by Busby to the
target telephone, and some from the target telephone to Busby. Hearing on Busbys
motion to suppress was held on August 16, 1999. At the outset of the hearing, counsel,
and the court, were in apparent agreement that a wiretap authorization order is presumed
-4-

proper and that a defendant in a criminal proceeding bears the burden of overcoming this
presumption. United States v. Mondragon, 52 F.3d 291, 292 (10th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 1997). In any event, counsel for Busby called as
his one and only witness Christopher Peters, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, who was examined and cross-examined, at length, regarding the wiretap
orders and the applications therefor. Peters was the affiant in each application. At the
conclusion of this hearing, the district court denied Busbys motion. The district court
first observed that Busby had failed to reach the threshold of rebutting the presumption
that the order and its extension were proper. The district court then went on to discuss in
some detail the other aspects of the matter. On appeal, counsels initial argument is that
the district court erred in denying Busbys motion to suppress the wiretap evidence. We
do not agree.
As we understand it, Busbys challenge is to the extension order of October 23,
1998, and not to the initial wiretap order of September 23, 1998. The challenge of the
extension order is based on counsels belief that there was no necessity for an extension
order, at least as such relates to Busby, since Busby became known, or could have been
known, to the authorities during the 30 day period authorized by the order of September
23, 1998. That is not the way we read the record. At the hearing on the motion to
suppress, counsel for Busby called one witness, Christopher Peters, the special agent for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Agent Peters testified that Busbys identity was not
-5-

made during the initial 30 day period but only well after the extension order was entered.
It would appear that in the initial 30 day period there may have been telephone calls
involving the target telephone and Busby, but Busbys identity was not established until
after the issuance of the extension order. It is our understanding that, during the time of
the wiretap, there were about 3200 calls to and from the target telephone and that only
310 were deemed pertinent and recorded. In any event, the application for the wiretap
and the application for the extension thereof were sufficient to meet the necessity
requirement. The statutory requirements concerning necessity, 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c),
(3)(c), must be read in a common sense fashion and do not require law enforcement
officials to exhaust all conceivable procedures before seeking a wiretap. See United
States v. Nunez, 877 F.2d 1470, 1472 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Apodaca, 820
F.2d 348, 350 (10th Cir. 1987) cert. denied 484 U.S. 903 (1987).
Busby also challenges on appeal the district courts denial of his motion to
suppress statements made by him at the time of his arrest to Officers Parsons and
Francetic of the Tulsa Police Department. A hearing on this motion was held just before
commencement of the actual trial out of the presence of the jury. Counsel for Busby
called two witnesses in support of that motion, Officers Parsons and Francetic. Parsons
testified that shortly after Busbys arrest, he advised Busby of his Miranda rights and
questioned him briefly, at which point Busby indicated that he did not want to talk further
with Parsons. There was some indication that because of some real, or fancied,
-6-

personality conflict, Busby simply did not want to talk with Parsons. In any event, after
a few questions about a key ring, Busby was turned over to Parsons supervisor, Corporal
Francetic. The latter testified that he advised Busby again of his Miranda rights and that
Busby then voluntarily gave him information about a rented storage unit where
contraband was later found. Francetic testified that Busby later stated the contents of the
storage unit were his, and not his girlfriends.
Counsel argues that the officers continued to question Busby after he had indicated
that he wanted to discontinue all dialogue with the police and that his subsequent
statements concerning the storage unit and his girlfriend were involuntary. We do not
agree. The testimony of Officers Parsons and Francetic amply supports the district
courts holding that, all things considered, Busbys statements to the local police were
voluntary. United States v. Lewis, 24 F.3d 79 (10th Cir. 1994).
It is on this basis that we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Busbys motions to suppress evidence gained by the wiretap and his statements to the
police officers at the time of his arrest.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 00-5044, United States v. Eskridge
Eskridge was jointly tried with Iiland, Woods, and McCalister and the jury
convicted him of conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and a continuing criminal
enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, 848. He was later sentenced to imprisonment
-7-

for 420 months on each conviction, to be served concurrently and certain monetary
assessments. Eskridge appeals. We affirm.
On appeal, Eskridge raises two issues, both relating to evidentiary rulings made by
the district court during a trial which extended over several weeks: (1) the district court
erred in admitting, over objection, co-conspirator hearsay by government witness David
Andrew Sump (Sump), and (2) the district court erred by admitting so-called nonscientific expert testimony by government witness Harold Clouse (Clouse), an FBI
document expert. We find no error.
By the second superceding indictment, Eskridge was charged, inter alia, with
conspiracy to possess and distribute drugs in the Tulsa area from 1991 to the date when
the indictment was returned, namely February 26, 1999. Sump was permitted to testify
about a meeting he had with Eskridge in 1995 at the latters residence in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, which residence was that of Eskridges mother, as well. Several others were
present at Eskridges residence on that occasion. As indicated, the district court, over
objection, allowed Sump to testify as to events occurring at that time and place. Sump
testified, inter alia, that shortly prior thereto he and others had transported drugs from
California to Tulsa and that he first met, or at least saw, Eskridge at the time and place of
delivery in Tulsa. Sump testified as to certain face-to-face conversations he had with
Eskridge at his residence and also testified as to certain comments made by others in
attendance when Eskridge was out of earshot, so to speak, to the effect that Eskridge was
-8-

in charge of the Tulsa operation. Sump also testified that on that particular occasion,
Eskridge escorted and unidentified person out of the room and that he, Sump, heard
Eskridge administer a severe beating to the other person who apparently had failed to turn
over certain drug monies.
Apparently all concerned recognize the exception to the hearsay rule which
permits the statements of a co-conspirator made in furtherance of a conspiracy to be used
against a defendant co-conspirator who was not present when the statements were made.
Statements made by Eskridge to, or overheard, by Sump, are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(E). Statements made by others when Eskridge was not physically present
would appear to us to come within the hearsay exception. The testimony regarding the
beating administered by Eskridge to an underling who had not accounted for monies due
Eskridge was not, in our view, hearsay.
As concerns witness Clouse, he merely identified certain records obtained during
the police investigation of the conspiracy as being consistent with and in the format
of an illegal drug organizations record keeping. Clouse was examined closely as to his
background, training and general qualifications to make such examinations and form
opinions in connection therewith. We find no error on the part of the district court in
permitting such line of authority. In permitting Clouse to so testify, the district court did
not offend Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) or Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
-9-

Further, neither Sump nor Clouse were, in our view, key witnesses in this case.
Their testimony merely tended to corroborate testimony of others. The government called
some thirty one witnesses, which included co-conspirators, and some indicted coconspirators, who directly implicated Eskridge in what the government aptly describes as
a large scale poly drug conspiracy spanning several years.
Judgment affirmed.1
No. 00-5043, United States v. Woods
In the second superceding indictment Woods, also known as Kool-Aid, was
charged in Count I with conspiring with McCalister, Iiland, Busby, Eskridge and others to
possess controlled substances with an intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846.
The Objects of the Conspiracy as set forth in Count I were to possess and distribute
cocaine and cocaine base, methamphetamine, marijuana and heroin. One hundred thirtytwo overt acts were also set out in the indictment. In Count XI of the indictment
Woods and one Arnold Ray Simon were charged with distributing on June 6, 1996, a
quantity of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(C). As indicated
Woods was jointly tried with McCalister, Iiland, and Eskridge, and the jury found him
Subsequent to oral argument, Eskridge filed with this Court a pro se reply brief
and two pro se supplemental briefs. In his pro se reply brief Eskridge challenges the
governments statement of the facts in several particulars. In his supplemental briefs
Eskridge raises, inter alia, the Apprendi issue (Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,
2000), which is discussed by us in Woods appeal, infra. We are not persuaded by any of
the matters sought to be raised in the supplemental briefs, some of which are raised for
the first time.
1

- 10 -

guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced Woods to imprisonment for 216
months on each count to run concurrently. Woods was also sentenced to five years
supervised release. He appeals from the convictions and sentence imposed thereon.
In his opening brief in this court counsel urges eight grounds for reversal. They
are as follows: (1) There was a prejudicial variance between the allegations in the
indictment and the evidence adduced at trial in that the indictment charged one conspiracy
and the evidence adduced at trial indicated there were in fact seven conspiracies, and that
Woods was only involved in one of the seven; (2) The district court erred in refusing to
strike the improper co-conspirator statement of Iiland after Iilands motion for acquittal
on the conspiracy charge was granted by the district court; (3) The governments
witnesses, Christopher Peters, an F.B.I. agent, and Dale Francetic, a Tulsa police officer,
were allowed to remain in the courtroom during the trial, which violated Fed. R. Evid.
615; (4) Woods convictions were based on perjured testimony of Secret Service Special
Agent Parkman and witness Pearson; (5) Improper restriction of counsel for Woods in his
cross-examination of government witness Timbrook; (6) Cumulative error; (7)
Insufficient evidence to support Woods conviction on Count XI; and (8) The district
court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in factoring into Woods base offense level
drugs found in Kathy Coopers home on June 16, 1996, counsel contending that there was
insufficient evidence to show that Woods was in constructive possession of such. Our
study of the record and the briefing on these eight matters indicates that there is no
- 11 -

reversible error in connection with any. This was a five week jury trial with numerous
witnesses being called by the government, which, as above stated, included coconspirators who, along with others, gave direct testimony involving Woods and the other
defendants. Thus, viewed in context, we conclude there was no error.
By supplemental brief, Woods, through counsel, draws to our attention to Apprendi
Jr. v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, decided June 26, 2000. Counsel argues that under
Apprendi, Counts I and XI in the indictment were fatally defective under the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments because neither identified both the precise drug involved and the
quantity thereof. Counsel further argues that, in any event, should we affirm Woods
convictions, the sentences imposed should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing after the district court has considered the possible applicability of Apprendi.
Apprendi, which involved a state criminal conviction, was presaged by Jones v.
United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999).2 As indicated, in his supplemental brief counsel
argues that Counts I and XI of the second superceding indictment are fatally defective
because neither sets forth both the identity of the particular drug involved and the quantity
thereof. In this regard, Count I does not identify the drug involved, using the phrase

In Jones at 243 n. 6, which involved a federal criminal conviction, the Supreme

Court spoke as follows:
[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury
trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that
increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment,
submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2

- 12 -

controlled substance, nor the quantity thereof, and while Count XI identified the drug
involved as heroin, it does not allege the quantity involved. In thus arguing, counsel relies
on Apprendi. We think that counsel over reads Apprendi. In Apprendi, the court spoke as
follows:
In sum, our reexamination of our cases in this area, and of the
history upon which they rely, confirms the opinion that we
expressed in Jones. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any
fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. With that exception, we endorse the statement
of the rule set forth in the concurring opinions in that case: [I]t is
unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the
assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to
which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such
facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 526
U.S. at 252-253 (opinion of STEVENS, J.); see also Id. at 253
(opinion of SCALIA, J.).
Id. at 455 (emphasis added).

Counsel also argues that under Apprendi, we must, at the very least, vacate the
sentence imposed and remand for re-sentencing in accord with Apprendi. As we
understand it, counsel does not really argue that the district court committed reversible
error in sentencing Woods to imprisonment for 216 months, which was within the
guideline range of 188 to 235 months. Imprisonment for 216 months (18 years) does not
exceed the statutory maximum term set forth in either 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) (life) or 21
U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) (20 years). Rather, counsel argues that the district courts
imposition of a five year supervised release on both Count I and XI, to run concurrently,
offends Apprendi. In this regard, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) provides, inter alia, that in the
- 13 -

absence of a prior conviction, the district court in sentencing a person thereunder shall
impose a term of supervised release of at least five years. 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C)
provides, inter alia, that in the absence of any prior conviction, the district court in
sentencing a person thereunder, shall impose a term of supervised release of at least three
years. As indicated, the district court imposed a term of supervised release of five years
on each count which is consistent with 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), which mandates a term
of supervised release of at least three years. In other words, it may be more than three
years. In this regard, see our recent case of United States v. Heckard, 238 F.3d 1222 (10th
Cir. 2001), where we held that 841(b)(1)(C) is not restricted by U.S.S.G. 5(D)1.2(a)
or [18 U.S.C.] 3583(b)(2) from establishing terms of supervised release greater than
three years.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 00-5107, United States v. McCalister
Michael McCalister was jointly tried with Iiland, Woods, and Eskridge and was
convicted by the jury of conspiracy to possess with an intent to distribute controlled
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. He was later sentenced to imprisonment for
290 months, supervised release for five years and $14,000 in fines. He now appeals his
conviction and the sentence imposed thereon.
On appeal, counsels principal argument is that there is insufficient evidence to
support the jurys verdict that he was involved in any conspiracy and thus did not violate
- 14 -

21 U.S.C. 846, as charged. Our reading of the record indicates otherwise.

Counsel points out that of the governments thirty one witnesses, twenty four
offered no testimony concerning McCalister, that only seven of the governments
witnesses mentioned McCalister and that only two of these witnesses, namely Marque
Greene and Charles Hudson, testified directly as to any drug activity on the part of
McCalister.
As indicated, the second superseding indictment charged seventeen defendants with
various and sundry drug offenses. In Count 1 of that indictment McCalister and fourteen
of his co-defendants were charged with conspiring from 1991 to the date of the indictment
(1999) with each other, and with others, both known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to
commit offenses against the United States in violation of Title 21, United States Code,
Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), namely possession of controlled substances, with intent to
distribute and distribution of controlled substances and other such offenses as set forth
below, all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 as follows . . . .
It is the governments position that Count 1 charged a large scale drug conspiracy
extending from 1991 to 1999 in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area with drugs being brought form
California and Mexico to Tulsa for distribution. As concerns McCalister, the government
contends that its evidence indicated that McCalister became a part of that conspiracy in
1994 and continued to be a member thereof until 1999. Counsel for McCalister, however,
suggests that there is insufficient evidence of any participation by McCalister in such
- 15 -

conspiracy, and, alternatively, that in about 1997 McCalister withdrew from the conspiracy
when he voluntarily went to the FBI and became an informant. Counsel also argued that
any participation by McCalister in drug sales in Tulsa was the result of entrapment. We
are in accord with the governments analysis of the record.
In United States v. Metropolitan Enterprises, Inc., 728 F.2d 444,450-451 (10th Cir.
1984) we spoke as follows:
A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons acting
in concert to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish
a lawful purpose by unlawful means. The evidence must show
circumstances to warrant a jury finding that the conspirators
had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding.
A co-conspirator need not know of the existence or identity of
the other members of the conspiracy or the full extent of the
conspiracy. The agreement need not be shown to have been
explicit. It can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
the case. Our examination of the evidence, with a view most
favorable to the government, leads us to conclude that there is
substantial proof, direct or circumstantial, together with
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, to sustain the
burden of proving that the appellants were guilty of
intentionally participating in a conspiracy to rig bids beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Id. at 450-451 (citations omitted).
As we did in Metropolitan, our study of the present record viewed in a light most
favorable to the government, convinces us that the direct and circumstantial evidence,
together with reasonable inferences therefrom, is sufficient to support the jurys verdict
that McCalister conspired as charged. Evidence that McCalister withdrew from any
conspiracy was sparse, and would not expiate his prior participation therein. The further
- 16 -

suggestion that McCalister was somehow entrapped into drug sales was resolved by the
jury acting pursuant to appropriate instructions on the matter.
Counsel next argues that the district court erred in denying McCalisters pre-trial
request that he be tried separately. As indicated, McCalister was jointly tried with three
other defendants, Iiland, Woods, and Eskridge. Counsel suggests that because the
evidence against McCalister was so slight, and the evidence against the other three
defendants was so strong, that he was prejudiced be being tried with the others. We are
not persuaded.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 8(b) permits joinder of two or more
defendants in the same indictment if they are alleged to have participated in the same act
or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or
offenses. The grant or denial of a motion for severance is a matter resting within the
sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Holland, 10 F.3d 696, 698 (10th
Cir. 1993). The mere fact that one co-defendant may be less culpable than his codefendants, is not, standing alone, sufficient grounds to establish abuse of discretion.
United States v. Williams, 45 F.3d 1481, 1484 (10th Cir. 1995). While more witnesses
may have testified against the other defendants, there was still considerable testimony
involving McCalister.
McCalister was represented at trial by the Federal Public Defenders Office, he
being indigent and unable to retain counsel. Apparently friction developed between
- 17 -

McCalister and his counsel and motions were filed to allow counsel to withdraw from the
case. At a pretrial conference, the district court denied such request, and at trial the
Defenders Office presented a vigorous defense. On appeal, counsel, no longer the Public
Defenders Office, argues that the district court in denying the requests that trial counsel
be permitted to withdraw from the case violated McCalisters Sixth Amendment rights and
constituted reversible error. We disagree.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not an absolute right and may not be
insisted upon in a manner which will obstruct orderly judicial procedure or interfere with a
courts exercise of its inherent power to control procedure in the courtroom. United
States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 625 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Freeman, 816 F.2d
558, 564 (10th Cir. 1987). In denying at pretrial conference the most recent request that
trial counsel be allowed to withdraw, the district court explained as follows:
You know, its becoming a little bit of a common practice for
defendants who want to have their case severed from the
others to attempt to get their - - get a new attorney or fire their
existing attorney right before trial. This has happened several
times here lately. I gather thats probably something thats
going around the jailhouse as a possible way to effect a motion
for severance. Its too late in the preparation for this case. The
case is too large, its too involved, theres too many aspects of
judicial economy involved. Ive already had a hearing with
Mr. McCalister last week, which Mr. Knorr was there, and he
decided not to represent himself, but he made no mention of
the fact at that time that he wanted the public defenders office
to withdraw. So I dont - - Im not inclined to grant that. Ill
let the United States make any comment that they wish to

- 18 -

make.3
Counsel next challenges the admission at trial of the wiretap evidence, claiming
that the necessity therefore was not demonstrated. This argument has previously been
considered and rejected by us in Busbys appeal.
Counsels final argument is that, at sentencing, the district court erred in estimating
the amount of drugs involved in determining relevant conduct. However, it would appear
that there was no objection to the Probation Offices computation thereof as such was
contained in the presentence report. In this connection, [w]e have repeatedly held that if
a defendant fails to object to his presentence report, he waives his right to challenge the
district courts reliance on it, unless the district courts decision to do so amounts to plain
error. United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1297 (10th Cir. 1996). Counsel has not
demonstrated plain error.
Judgment affirmed.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. McWilliams
Senior Circuit Judge

We are not persuaded by counsels further argument that if the district court had
held a detention hearing, which McCalister had twice waived, he would have been
released from pre-trial detention and could have earned money and retained counsel.
3

- 19 -